coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Melitopol.
5.  On 29 July 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Melitopol Court against the Simferopol State University, her former employer, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation for unused leave.
6.  On 19 July 2001 the court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.
7.  On 21 February 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.
8.  On 22 March 2005 the first-instance court left the applicant’s claims without consideration, holding that she had repeatedly failed to appear at court hearings.
9.  On 21 June 2005 the court of appeal quashed that decision, finding that there was no proof that the applicant had been duly informed about the date and place of the first instance court’s hearing, and remitted the case to the first instance court for consideration on the merits.
10.  On 12 December 2006 the court ordered modification of the record concerning the applicant’s dismissal and ordered the respondent to pay her certain sum, having rejected the remainder of her claims. On 22 March 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
11.  On 18 September 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.
12.  Out of sixty hearings scheduled in the applicant’s case ten were adjourned due to the applicant’s absence or upon her request, eleven hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the respondent or his representative or upon their requests, seven were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear. Nine hearings were adjourned due to the judge’s illness, two were adjourned due to the judge’s absence, and one was adjourned due to the liquidation of the court dealing with the applicant’s case.
5.  The applicants, who are sisters, were born, respectively, in 1956 and 1959 and live in Salekhard and Salemal, the Russian Federation.
6.  In August 2001, I.Z., the applicants’ sister, instituted proceedings against them challenging a privatisation title issued by the local government to a part of their father’s apartment inherited under his will (the first applicant had bequeathed her part of the will to the second applicant, who as a result shared the apartment’s ownership with I.Z.).
7.  According to the Government, the applicants did not attend two of the hearings in the Feodossiyskyy Town Court (“the Feodossiyskyy Court”), which dealt with the case, thus protracting the proceedings by two months.
8.  On 18 April 2003 the Feodossiyskyy Court ruled in I.Z.’s favour. The applicants appealed.
9.  On 10 July 2003 the Feodossiyskyy Court, ruling on the admissibility of the appeal, set 4 August 2003 as a deadline for fixing procedural formalities. On 8 August 2003 the court ruled to return the appeal to the applicants as they had not rectified the indicated shortcomings.
10.  Between August 2003 and April 2004, the Feodossiyskyy Court reconsidered the admissibility of the applicants’ appeal several times and refused to admit it for examination on merits as belated.
11.  On 6 April 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the last inadmissibility ruling of the Feodossiyskyy Court, stating that it was its own competence to examine that issue.
12.  On 27 April 2004 the Court of Appeal granted an extension for submission of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 18 April 2003, and admitted it for examination.
13.  On 24 November 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled in the applicants’ favour.
14.  On 23 December 2004 I.Z. appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court.
15.  On 21 April 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Zaporizhya Regional Court of Appeal, in compliance with the legislative measures of February 2007 on distribution of its backlog of cassation appeals among appellate courts.
16.  On 9 November 2007 the Zaporizhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, upheld the ruling of 24 November 2004.
6.  The applicant company is registered under Peruvian Law and is based in Lima.
7.  The applicant company exported organic bananas to Europe. In 2001/2002 it concluded a commission contract with two German companies, agreeing that all legal disputes would be brought before the courts in Hamburg. The contract also included a clause that legal disputes be settled by an arbitration tribunal in Hamburg.
8.  On 31 December 2005 the applicant company requested legal aid to bring a civil action before the Hamburg Regional Court (Landgericht) against the two German companies for breach of the commission contract, submitting that the applicant company and its shareholder were insolvent and could thus not afford an advance payment of the court fees.
9.  On 4 January 2006 the Hamburg Regional Court dismissed the request for legal aid. It held that, according to section 116 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, see Relevant domestic law, below), only legal persons founded or based in one of the member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area were entitled to legal aid.
10.  On 17 January 2006 the Regional Court rejected an objection by the applicant company. It held that section 116 of the German Code of Civil Procedure exhaustively determined which legal persons were entitled to receive legal aid, and it was not for the court to extend this provision to include companies based outside Europe. Germany was not obliged to enable all legal persons in the world to benefit from legal aid.
11.  On 23 January 2006 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) confirmed the Regional Court’s decisions. It added that the interference with the applicant company’s right of access to a court was justified. The restriction imposed on the applicant’s right of access to a court was justified by the principle of reciprocity: if equal treatment was codified under constitutional law, there would be no incentive for foreign States to provide German legal persons with the same legal standard. The court also held that, even if the applicant company were to be put on a par with a domestic legal person, the non-litigation of the applicant company’s case did not run counter to the general interest. Relying on a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of 3 July 1973 (no. 1 BvR 153/69, report BVerfGE 35, 356), it considered in this regard that even a domestic legal entity retained its right to exist under the legal order only if it was able to pursue its objectives by virtue of its own strength and means.
12.  On 25 October 2006 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant company’s constitutional complaint. This decision was served on the applicant company on 2 November 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kryvyy Rig.
5.  On 29 September 2009 the local prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of bribery.
6.  On 30 September 2009 the applicant was arrested under Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7.  On 2 October 2009 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody on the ground that he might abscond, obstruct justice and continue criminal activities.
8.  On 18 November 2009 the same court extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to four months (until 29 January 2010) on similar grounds.
9.  As it appears from the case file, on 29 January 2010, following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutors sent the case to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) to determine which court had jurisdiction. On 8 February 2010 the latter court determined that the case should be examined by the District Court and forwarded the case to that court for trial.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s representative asked the District Court to release the applicant from detention as the time-limit for his detention had expired on 29 January 2010.
11.  On 9 March 2010, at the committal hearing, the court rejected the request stating that on 29 January 2010 the case had been sent to the Court of Appeal and, subsequently, to the District Court for trial. It further held that there were no grounds for changing the applicant’s preventive measure. It did not fix any time-limit for the applicant’s subsequent detention.
12.  On 7 June 2010 the applicant and his representative requested the court to change his preventive measure from detention on remand to undertaking not to abscond. On the same day the court rejected the request due to the gravity of charges against the applicant and because he did not plead guilty and might obstruct justice at liberty. It did not fix any time-limit for the applicant’s further detention.
13.  According to the Government, on 23 May 2011 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to an unspecified term of imprisonment on probation. On 10 October 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Izhevsk, Republic of Udmurtiya.
7.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant brought proceedings in court challenging the authorities’ refusal to issue him with a new passport.
8.  On 20 September 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya, considering the case at the supervisory instance, found for the applicant.
9.  The applicant subsequently sued the authorities for damages resulting from their unlawful refusal to issue him with a passport.
10.  On 11 August 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk granted the applicant’s claims in part and awarded him 4,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the Russian Ministry of Finance.
11.  On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya upheld the judgment on appeal.
12.  According to the Government, shortly after the judgment of 11 August 2004 became binding and enforceable, the trial court forwarded the writ of execution to the relevant department of the bailiff service. However, on 21 January 2005 the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff service with an explanation that the document should be submitted to the Ministry of Finance.
13.  The applicant did not re-submit the document to any authorities, and the judgment remains unenforced to date.
14.  Article 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997 (no. 119-ФЗ) as in force at the material time provided that a bailiff was to set a time-limit up to five days for the defendant’s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution. The bailiff was also to warn the defendant that coercive action would follow should the defendant fail to comply with the time-limit. Under Article 13 of the Law, the enforcement proceedings had to be completed within two months of the receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff.
15.  In 2001-2005 the judgments delivered against the public authorities were executed in accordance with a special procedure established, inter alia, by the Government’s Decree no. 143 of 22 February 2001 and, subsequently, by Decree no. 666 of 22 September 2002, entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance. By a ruling of 14 July 2005 (no. 8-П), the Constitutional Court of Russia considered certain provisions governing the special execution procedure to be incompatible with the Constitution. Following that ruling, the Law of 27 December 2005 (no. 197-ФЗ) introduced a new chapter in the Budget Code modifying this special procedure. The Law notably empowered the Federal Treasury to execute judgments against legal entities funded by the federal budget and the Ministry of Finance to execute judgments against the State. Under Article 242.2.6 of the Budget Code, the judgments must be executed within three months after receipt of the necessary documents.
ITMarkFactsComplaintsEnd
6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Lahti, Finland.
7.  On 18 June 1999 the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) found that unlawful actions of police officers in 1993 had resulted in harm to the applicant’s health manifesting itself in partial loss of ability to work. This judgment and a supplementary judgment of 11 October 1999 recovered from the State treasury in the applicant’s favour lost earnings up to 1 February 2000 in the amount of 109,751 Russian roubles (RUB) and compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 10,000. It appears from the applicant’s own submissions that the award was paid to him in 1999.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a new action seeking recovery of lost earnings for the period from 1 February 2000 to 1 March 2005 and further monthly payments to be re-calculated in accordance with the minimum wage, reimbursement of expert fees and compensation for sanatorium treatment.
9.  By a judgment of 3 March 2005 the District Court granted his claims in part, however the judgment was reversed on appeal on 18 April 2005, and the case was remitted to the first instance for fresh examination.
10.  On 19 September 2005 the District Court again granted the claims in part awarding the applicant lost earnings in the amount of RUB 378,185 and related monthly payments in the amount of RUB 8,911 to be adjusted to the cost of living, RUB 39,585 for sanatorium treatment, and RUB 5,600 as reimbursement of the expert fees.
11.  The above judgment was not challenged on appeal. The enforcement documents received by the Ministry of Finance on 25 October 2005 were returned to the applicant in April 2006 due to unidentified inconsistencies in the judgment.
12.  On 18 June 2007 the District Court considered the applicant’s application for adjustment of the amounts awarded by the judgment of 19 September 2005. The court rejected the application but clarified the original judgment by specifying that the responsibility for its enforcement lay with the Ministry of Finance. A new writ of enforcement was issued.
13.  On 29 January 2008 the judgment of 19 September 2005 was enforced in full. It transpires from the documents submitted by the Government and covering the period between February 2008 and February 2010 that the monthly payments in the amount determined by the District Court on 19 September 2005 were regularly credited to the applicant’s account.
5.  On 8 November 1993 A.D. brought an action against the applicant in the Kamnik Local Court. She sought that the applicant ceases to use her plot of land for other reasons than for his right of passage.
6.  On 27 December 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against A.D., seeking that she removes her car blocking the passage to his outbuildings. Both proceedings were joined.
7.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect to Slovenia.
8.  In 1995 the case was reassigned following the restructuring of the courts.
9.  On 21 June 1996 a hearing was held.
10.  On 5 November 1996 a hearing was held where both parties requested for it to be postponed, since there were talks of reaching a settlement.
11.  On 10 January 1997 the first-instance court sent an inquiry to the parties about the developments regarding the settlement. They did not respond.
12.  Between 16 March 1999 and 18 October 1999 three hearings were held.
13.  On 8 October 1999 the first-instance court delivered a written judgment, partly upholding both claims, the applicant’s and A.D.’s. Both parties appealed.
14.  On 31 January 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal but upheld A.D.’s appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.
15.  On 15 May 2001 a hearing was held.
16.  Two hearings scheduled for 28 August 2001 and 27 September 2001 were rescheduled on the request of the applicant due to his illness.
17.  At the end of January 2002 the case was reassigned to a new judge.
18.  On 31 May 2004 a hearing was held.
19.  On 27 July 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
20.  On 23 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and again remitted the case for re-examination.
21.  On 15 November 2005 the Kamnik Local Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
22.  On 24 May 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. That decision was served on the applicant on 18 July 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Toruń.
6.  The applicant requested that a certificate be issued that he had been carrying out forced labour during his military service. Such a service would have had incidence on the amount of his retirement pension. His claim was dismissed by a decision given by the first-instance administrative authority on 2 April 2007. The applicant appealed. The second-instance authority dismissed his appeal on 23 April 2007.
7.  The applicant appealed to the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court.
8.  By a judgment of 29 August 2007 that court dismissed his appeal. This judgment was served on an unspecified date shortly after 17 September 2007.
9.  Shortly afterwards and, in any event, prior to 8 October 2007 the applicant requested that legal aid be granted to him for the purposes of the cassation proceedings.
10.  By a decision of 29 November 2007 the applicant’s request was granted. On 14 January 2008 the court requested the Bydgoszcz Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case. By a letter of 16 January 2008 the Bar Association informed the applicant that lawyer D.K. was assigned to represent him for the purposes of the cassation proceedings.
11.  On 28 January 2008 the lawyer requested the applicant to give her a power of attorney. The applicant did so by a letter of 31 January 2008.
12.  By a letter of 17 March 2008 the lawyer informed the applicant that substantive law grounds for cassation appeal did not obtain in his case. Hence, it would have served no purpose to prepare such an appeal. She accordingly refused to do so.
13.  On 25 March 2008 the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court refused to examine a request for retrospective leave to appeal out of time submitted by the legal-aid lawyer on an unspecified date before 4 March 2008. The court noted that she had submitted such a request, but it could not be allowed because she had failed to submit it together with the cassation appeal as required by the applicable procedural provisions (see paragraph 22 below).
14.  On the same day the applicant submitted his own request for retrospective leave to appeal out of time.
15.  On 7 May 2008 the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court summoned the applicant to supplement that request by submitting a cassation appeal prepared and signed by a lawyer.
16.  On 19 May 2008 the applicant submitted a cassation appeal which he had prepared himself.
17.  On 12 June 2008 the court summoned the applicant to submit within seven days a cassation appeal prepared by a lawyer.
18.  The applicant failed to do so. By a decision of 3 July 2008 the Regional Court declined to examine the appeal submitted by the applicant. The applicant appealed.
19.  On 14 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Tokat.
6.  On 27 March 1997 the applicant was arrested by police officers of the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Forces on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and involvement in a bank robbery.
7.  On 1 April 1997 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, who placed him in pre-trial detention.
8.  On 30 April 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to overturn the constitutional system by force under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.
9.  Basing its decision on the evidence before it, on 19 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
10. On 16 September 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds and returned the case to the first-instance court.
11.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings were transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court (2003/291 E.).
12.  During the proceedings, the Istanbul Assize Court held hearings at two- or three-month intervals at which the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was reviewed. At those hearings the applicant made his pleadings orally before the trial court and requested to be released pending trial. The Istanbul Assize Court rejected those requests several times in view of the reasonable grounds of suspicion established against the applicant, the nature of the criminal charges and the state of the evidence in the case file.
13.  In between the hearings, the Istanbul Assize Court continued to scrutinise, by virtue of Article 108 of Law no. 5271, the necessity of applicant’s continued pre-trial detention every thirty days on the basis of the case file, without holding an oral hearing.
14.  At a hearing on 6 March 2008, the applicant was again brought before the trial court, where he claimed that his continued detention was unlawful and consequently requested to be released pending trial. This request was rejected by the Istanbul Assize Court on the basis of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he was charged, and the state of the evidence in the case file.
15. Following the applicant’s objection against the above-mentioned decision, the 14th Division of the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention on the basis of the case file. On 4 April 2008 the court dismissed the objection lodged by the applicant based on the public prosecutor’s written opinion, which had not been communicated to the applicant.
16.  On 3 November 2009, having regard to the period he had spent in detention, the Istanbul Assize Court released the applicant on the condition that he did not leave the country.
17.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are currently pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Łódź.
6.  The applicant was serving a prison sentence in Potulice Prison. The overall term of his imprisonment was due to come to an end on 26 May 2007.
7.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code, applicable to persons found guilty of offences committed while acting as members of an organised criminal group, the applicant became eligible for early conditional release (warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie) after having served three‑quarters of the overall term of his imprisonment, namely on 12 July 2006. After that date, the applicant requested a court on several occasions to grant him conditional release. However, his requests were denied.
8.  On 11 January 2007 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave a decision ordering the applicant’s early conditional release for a two-year probationary period. It placed the applicant under the supervision of a court officer and imposed certain other obligations on him.
9.  On 19 February 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the decision of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court.
10.  On 20 February 2007 the applicant was served with a copy of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal’s decision.
11.  According to the official release certificate, the applicant was released on 26 February 2007.